KEY DECISION NOTICE SERVICE AREA: PEOPLE DIRECTORATE Strategy and Early Intervention SUBJECT MATTER: TROUBLED FAMILIES WAVE 2 – JOINT INVESTMENT AGREEMENT DECISION: It is DETERMINED that: DECISION MAKER: (1) the Council approves the new investment agreement approach to working with a minimum of 1,750 ‘Troubled Families’ (the remainder of families are to be worked with primarily by the local authority); (2) Investment made by the Council is initially limited to the fee provided by the Government needed to begin work with a family (the attachment fee). This will be equivalent to the number of families an agency is able to work with; (3) a results fee, provided by the Government, will be paid to an agency where a family who are working with that agency meets the criteria for a results payment from the Government; (4) any agency willing to enter into the investment agreement with the Council will have to abide by the terms of the investment agreement including the provision of additional investment and the demonstration of additional value; (5) A waiver is granted under PSO C3.2 to use the Negotiated Tendering Procedure to enable a direct award of the investment agreement with New Charter Housing Trust. Councillor Allison Gwynne Sandra Stewart* Pam Williams* DESIGNATION OF DECISION Executive Member - Children and Families TAKER(S): Executive Director of Governance (Borough Solicitor)* Executive Director of Finance (Borough Treasurer)* DATE OF DECISION: 25 March 2015 REASON FOR DECISION: To permit a further a joint investment with New Charter Housing Trust building upon the successful joint delivery in Wave 1. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS An alternative option is to go out to tender and seek to procure an REJECTED (if any): investment partner through a competitive procedure. This is a very expensive and inefficient option and the Council would in effect be procuring exactly the same level of quality, activity and provision, with minimal opportunity for improvement. In addition, the market would be severely restricted in that the tender would not be an attractive option to many would-be providers. CONSULTEES: Internal only. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Troubled Families wave 2 investment agreements will be (Authorised by Borough restricted to the sum provided by Central Government and which Treasurer) is estimated in table 2 within section 5.3 of the report. There are a minimum number of families to support in the programme (total of 1750). The Council will receive an initial sum for each family supported known as the attachment fee (£1000 per family). An additional sum per family will be received when those outcomes are achieved (£800 per family) known as payment by results (PBR). The table 2 within section 5.3 of the report details the estimated income and expenditure by each partner agency involved in the programme. All allocated income and expenditure will be monitored in line with the councils monitoring process. A robust performance management framework will be required to ensure outcomes are monitored and delivered and that there is an associated transparent audit trail. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: It is lawful to enter into arrangements of this nature. The services (Authorised by Borough will be subject to the light touch regime under Section 7 of the Solicitor) Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and not subject to the full procurement rules. An exception is required under PSO C3.2 to dispense with a competitive procedure which must be approved by the Executive Director (Governance) and Executive Director (Finance) in consultation with the Executive Member. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None. DISPENSATION GRANTED Not required. BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED: ACCESS TO INFORMATION: The background papers (including consultation documents and responses) relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report writer Thomas Johnson by: Telephone:0161 342 3334 e-mail: [email protected] Signed…………………………………………………..… Dated……………………………… Councillor Allison Gwynne – Executive Member - Children and Families Signed…………………………………………………..… Dated……………………………… Sandra Stewart – Executive Director of Governance (Borough Solicitor)* Signed…………………………………………………..… Dated……………………………… Pam Williams – Executive Director of Finance (Borough Treasurer)* *With respect to a decision under Procurement Standing Order C3.2 only KEY DECISION REPORT SERVICE AREA: PEOPLE DIRECTORATE Strategy and Early Intervention SUBJECT MATTER: TROUBLED FAMILIES WAVE 2 – JOINT INVESTMENT AGREEMENT DATE OF DECISION: 25 March 2015 DECISION TAKER Councillor Allison Gwynne, Executive Member - Children and Families Sandra Stewart – Executive Director of Governance (Borough Solicitor)* Pam Williams – Executive Director of Finance (Borough Treasurer)* REPORTING OFFICER: Stephanie Butterworth – Executive Director (People) REPORT SUMMARY: The report provides details of phase 2 of the Governments Troubled Families programme and the actions taken by the Council in consultation with Greater Manchester Authorities to influence its strategic direction. The report seeks approval to continue with joint investment arrangements with public sector agencies to meet the requirements and objectives of phase 2. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is DETERMINED that: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION: the Council approves the new investment agreement approach to working with a minimum of 1,750 ‘Troubled Families’ (the remainder of families are to be worked with primarily by the local authority); investment made by the Council is initially limited to the fee provided by the Government needed to begin work with a family (the attachment fee). This will be equivalent to the number of families an agency is able to work with; a results fee, provided by the Government, will be paid to an agency where a family who are working with that agency meets the criteria for a results payment from the Government; any agency willing to enter into the investment agreement with the Council will have to abide by the terms of the investment agreement including the provision of additional investment and the demonstration of additional value; a waiver be granted under PSO C3.2 to use the Negotiated Tendering Procedure to enable a direct award of the investment agreement with New Charter Housing Trust. To permit a further a joint investment with New Charter Housing Trust building upon the successful joint delivery in Wave 1. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS An alternative option is to go out to tender and seek to REJECTED (if any): procure an investment partner through a competitive procedure. This is a very expensive and inefficient option and the Council would in effect be procuring exactly the same level of quality, activity and provision, with minimal opportunity for improvement. In addition, the market would be severely restricted in that the tender would not be an attractive option to many would-be providers. CONSULTEES: Internal only. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Troubled Families wave 2 investment agreement will be (Authorised by Borough restricted to the sum provided by Central Government and Treasurer) which is estimated in table 2 within section 5.3 of the report. There are a minimum number of families to support in the programme (total of 1750). The Council will receive an initial sum for each family supported known as the attachment fee (£1000 per family). An additional sum per family will be received when those outcomes are achieved (£800 per family) known as payment by results (PBR). The table 2 within section 5.3 of the report details the estimated income and expenditure by each partner agency involved in the programme. All allocated income and expenditure will be monitored in line with the councils monitoring process. A robust performance management framework will be required to ensure outcomes are monitored and delivered and that there is an associated transparent audit trail. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: It is lawful to enter into arrangements of this nature. The (Authorised by Borough services will be subject to the light touch regime under Solicitor) Section 7 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and not subject to the full procurement rules. An exception is required under PSO C3.2 to dispense with a competitive procedure which must be approved by the Executive Director (Governance) and Executive Director (Finance) in consultation with the Executive Member. RISK MANAGEMENT: Risk should be minimal as partners will only receive joint investment funds as an when the LA receive these funds from Government. There may be other risks including the risk of not performing to requirements, this will be managed on an ongoing basis by continuous performance monitoring and robust audit arrangements. LINKS TO COMMUNITY PLAN: Healthy Tameside, Supportive Tameside, Prosperous Tameside, Learning Tameside, Safe Tameside ACCESS TO INFORMATION: The background papers (including consultation documents and responses) relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report writer Thomas Johnson by: Telephone:0161 342 3334 e-mail: [email protected] 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 In April 2012, the Government launched the Troubled Families Programme a £448 million scheme to incentivise local authorities and their partners to turn around the lives of 120,000 troubled families by May 2015. The current programme works with families where children are not attending school, young people are committing crime, families are involved in antisocial behaviour and adults are out of work. 1.2 In June 2013, the Government announced plans to expand the Troubled Families Programme for a further five years from 2015/16 and to reach up to an additional 400,000 families across England. £200 million has been committed to fund the first year of this five year programme. This increased investment is testament to the Government’s ongoing commitment to improve the lives of troubled families and as this work is taken to a significantly greater scale, to transform local public services and reduce costs for the longterm. 1.3 Over the last 3 years Tameside has successfully delivered Phase 1 of the Troubled Families agenda. The approach taken in Tameside has proved to be one of the most successful in both Greater Manchester and across the country. Throughout the course of the 3 years, Tameside has consistently performed and is now set to achieve 100% of results from Phase 1 by March 2015. These results include reductions in anti-social behaviour and crime, improvements in school attendance and behaviour and progress towards work. Furthermore, as a result of the approach taken, 146 families with complex issues (or 25% of the results) have gained employment. Again, Tameside is the top performing authority in GM in terms of moving people into work and set against the complex nature of issues presented by families this can be considered a exceptional achievement. 1.4 Central to the successes in Phase 1 has been the model and approach taken namely: Jointly investing across agencies – this ensures additional resources are provided and a wider range and number of families can be worked with. It allows us to scale up the key worker model across a wider range of agencies. It allowed us to test an innovative and effective model of using resources to both create economies of scale and inform and drive forward the wider reform of public services. Taking a wider ‘Early Intervention’ Approach – though Phase 1 required us to work with 620 families who met specific criteria set out in the national framework, it was important that we did not just focus on this strict criteria and that we sought to address wider issues presented by complex families beyond this criteria in order to truly address the underlying issues presented by families (e.g. Mental Health, Domestic Violence, Family Breakdown, financial and benefit issues etc). In addition, it was important that we shifted our resource to an earlier intervention level to ensure that worked with families at an earlier stage to prevent issues escalating to a more serve level and avoided expensive statutory interventions further down the line. To this end, though we effectively worked with our allocated 620 families, our Early Intervention model worked with a much wider cohort of 1000 per annum. Using the Troubled Families programme as a catalyst to drive forward the Public Service Reform agenda and integrate public services – a clear goal of the local model and approach was to ensure that we did not run Troubled Families as a ‘programme’ but used the opportunity presented by the multi-disciplinary agenda, in the context of wider Complex Dependency, to bring together the strands of PSR (Complex Dependency, Work and Skills, Early Years, Transforming Justice and Health and Social Care Integration) into a whole-place, pan-public service model which aims to reduce demand presenting to public services, test out new models and ultimately reduce costs. 2. ‘EARLY STARTER’ AUTHORITIES 2.1 The Government announced in the Budget 2014 that it would offer the highest performing areas (those that have ‘turned around’ the lives of the most families in the current Programme) the opportunity to start delivery of the expanded Troubled Families Programme early – during 2014/15. Tameside was one of fifty-one such areas were identified and signed up to be part of the first wave of ‘early starter’ areas. These areas began delivery in September 2014 and have been working intensively with the National Troubled Families Team to implement and refine the operating model for the national roll out of the expanded Troubled Families Programme from March 2015. 2.2 As an ‘early starter’ area, Tameside has had an important role to play; these areas have been critical to maintaining the momentum of the current Troubled Families Programme and helping to build a strong evidence base in order to inform the case for continued investment in the expanded programme beyond 2015/16. Furthermore, these areas have been working with the Troubled Families Team on the detail of the new Financial Framework and have helped refine and improve the guidance and support offered to other local areas as they join the programme. The early starters are the best performing areas in the country. 2.3 Tameside has been working with both Greater Manchester colleagues and the Troubled Families Team to build in flexibility into the Financial Framework for wave/phase 2 and the national model for the next phase has been heavily informed by the model in Tameside and other areas in Greater Manchester due to the exceptional performance of these models. This collaborative work has had a particular emphasis on the following: The development of an independent national evaluation for the expanded Troubled Families Programme; The completion and continued improvement of the Troubled Families online cost savings calculator; The design and implementation of a new system of Family Progress Data; The refinement of the indicators suggested to identify families and the development of best practice approaches to measuring significant and sustained progress with families; The design of the ‘spot check’ process for results and engagement of local authority Internal Auditors in the approval of local results claims; and The introduction of a model of transparent local accountability for the success of the programme as a tool to drive greater service transformation, using streamlined data collection tools. 2.4 Greater Manchester is unique in the country in terms of being the only area to take a joint sub-regional approach to delivering phase 2 and placed firmly in the context of the agreement and clear expectation that agencies across GM will work together to address complex dependency at scale, with a strong focus on work and skills. GM has made a commitment to engage 50,000 individuals or families over a three year period. This commitment sits alongside and is complementary to an allocation of 27,000 families over a 5 year period under the Troubled Families Programme and GM’s early adopter status in Phase 2 of the programme. 2.5 Tameside’s allocation for the Early Adopter period (September 14 – March 2015) was an additional 313 families above and beyond the 620 according to phase 1 criteria. Due to the model, we are already engaged with 100% of these additional families. 3. IDENTIFYING FAMILIES – PHASE 2 3.1 The current Troubled Families Programme has led the way for the first systematic identification of families with multiple problems across England. The expanded Troubled Families Programme will retain the current programme’s focus on families with multiple high cost problems and continue to include families affected by poor school attendance, youth crime, anti-social behaviour and unemployment. However, it will also reach out to families with a broader range of problems, including those affected by domestic violence and abuse, with younger children who need help, where crime and anti-social behaviour problems may become intergenerational and with a range of physical and mental health problems. 3.2 Reflecting the expanded programme’s focus on a broader range of family problems, rather than a small number of nationally defined criteria, the inclusion of families into the programme will be based upon a cluster of six headline problems. Below these problems will sit a basket of indicators, suggested nomination3 routes and information sources, which local authorities should use to identify families with these problems. While the headline family problems on which the programme focuses are unlikely to change, the indicators and information sources underneath are designed to be flexible and can be updated over the course of the programme’s proposed five year life. 3.3 There will not be a sign off process where local authorities look to introduce new or different indicators under any of the six problems as this is intended to be a locally responsive and flexible model. However, to ensure best practice examples are shared and the list of indicators provided to local authorities is up to date, local authorities should inform the Troubled Families Team if they would like to use new or different indicators or information sources. To be eligible for the expanded programme, each family must have at least two of the following six problems: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Parents and children involved in crime or anti-social behaviour. Children who have not been attending school regularly. Children who need help: children of all ages, who need help, are identified as in need or are subject to a Child Protection Plan. Adults out of work or at risk of financial exclusion or young people at risk of worklessness. Families affected by domestic violence and abuse. Parents and children with a range of health problems. 3.4 While families may be identified as eligible for the programme on the basis of two problems, the information available at the point of identification may not reflect the entirety of each family’s complexity of problems. Some problems, such as domestic violence or mental illness, may be hidden from public services until work begins with the family and uncovers the full extent of their needs. A similar situation has been apparent in the current Troubled Families Programme whereby families have entered the current programme having met at least three eligibility criteria, but our evaluation has so far found that, on average, families have nine significant problems on entry to the programme. The expanded Troubled Families Programme remains a programme for families with multiple, high cost problems, although the profile and extent of these problems may differ from those of families supported by the current programme. 3.5 The formula for identifying families allows for a level of discretion which should be exercised reasonably. Local authorities should identify families across all six problems and ensure the Programme’s resources are being used to best effect. Families should be prioritised for inclusion in the programme on the basis of the following: They are families with multiple problems who are most likely to benefit from an integrated, whole-family approach; and They are families who are the highest cost to the public purse. 3.6 While the detail of this prioritisation should be agreed locally, the periodic collection and publication of Family Monitoring/ Progress Data and the cost savings calculator for every local area will provide a form of accountability. These will show the types of families and problems that areas are prioritising. The Troubled Families Team will also consider this information as part of the programme’s ongoing ‘spot check’ processes. The Troubled Families Team has been collecting examples from ‘early starter’ areas over the past few months to gather information regarding the prioritisation of families, which will inform guidance for the national roll out from March 2016. 4. MEASURING SUCCESS 4.1 The expanded Troubled Families Programme has ambitious service transformation goals and therefore differs from the current programme in how it will measure, and pay for success. Rather than focusing on a small number of relatively tightly defined national results to be achieved with each family it asks local authorities and their partners to measure success in three main ways for which funding is available: 4.2 Firstly, by demonstrating either significant and sustained progress or continuous employment with an agreed number of families in each upper-tier local authority, representing the area’s share of the estimated national total of 400,000 families. Each family’s achievement of ‘significant and sustained’ progress will be assessed against a locally defined Troubled Family Outcomes Plan. This will provide a new, more flexible approach to measuring results. See Annex D and E for more detail. 4.3 Funding for this is available for each family who achieves success and will be paid in two parts: an upfront attachment fee of £1,000 per family and a results-based payment of £800 per family. Once the programme is rolled out nationally from April 2015, payments of attachment fees will normally be made in the first quarter of each financial year, subject to satisfactory performance against the previous year’s agreed commitments in regard to the number of families for which attachment fees were received. 4.4 Secondly, by capturing a much richer understanding of the progress achieved with a representative sample of families across a broader range of outcomes. This will be achieved during 2014/15 through the collection and publication of Family Monitoring Data (using existing systems). However, this approach has been improved through a co-design process with ‘early starter’ areas to focus more on capturing a richer picture of the progress achieved (Family Progress Data) with a representative sample of families through the programme. 4.5 Finally, by developing a much better understanding of the financial benefits achieved through the programme and by stimulating ongoing service transformation through transparent local accountability for these benefits. All local authorities will be asked to complete the online troubled families cost savings calculator, which has already been made available. The calculations produced by local areas and Family Progress Data analysis will be published periodically. This will show the complexity of the families supported by the programme, the effectiveness of interventions and the benefits of this work to local services and the taxpayer. Family Outcomes Plan 4.6 Results should only be claimed once a Troubled Families Outcomes Plan is in place and has been shared with the area’s Internal Auditors as part of their sign off process . In addition to the requirements to provide Family Monitoring/ Progress Data and information to support the cost savings calculator, Tameside has been working with GM and Internal Auditors to set out a common Family Outcomes Plan across the sub-region. This document is designed to act as a guide for programme teams, frontline workers and audit teams involved in the payment by results claims process for phase 2 of the national Troubled Families Programme as required. 4.7 It sets out an agreed approach to evidencing when a family has achieved ‘significant and sustained’ progress and is eligible for payment by the terms of the Troubled national Financial Framework and the agreed measures that can be drawn upon as evidence that the family has achieved significant and sustained improvement for particular issues. The GM Family Outcomes Plan can be seen in Appendix 1. 5. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW 5.1 Achieving the locally determined outcomes set out in the GM Family Outcomes Plan that demonstrate significant and sustained improvement with these families will attract funding from government of up to £1800 per family; this is made up of £1000 in an upfront attachment fee and £800 when those outcomes are achieved. 5.2 An overall breakdown of these numbers and a comparison to Phase1 (TF1) and Early Starter (ES) numbers can be seen in the table below (Phase 2 – TF2 – will run over a 5 year period): Table 1: TF1 District Tameside GM Total TF2 (ES) Total Early Starter (ES) Allocation % Share of GM Attachment Fee £ Allocation Allocation* 620 2,084 313 8.5 313,000 7,335 27,200 3,699 100 3,699,000 (ES) Estimated possible PbR payments £ TF2 Total Attachment Fee £ Estimated possible PbR payments £ 250,400 2,084,000 1,667,200 2,959,200 27,200,000 21,760,000 * Note: that as GM have committed to work with these families as a sub-region, this is an indicative number. As such there is scope for increasing Tameside’s share of families should the model have the capacity to do so. 5.3 The overall estimated income and expenditure (details of proposal can be seen in Section 6, Joint Investment) is as follows: Table 2: Early Starter Year actual Year 1 estimate Year 2 estimate Year 3 estimate Year 4 estimate Year 5 estimate Year 6 estimate Full Period 2014/15 £ 2015/16 £ 2016/17 £ 2017/18 £ 2018/19 £ 2019/20 £ 2020/21 £ Total 2014/152020/21 £ Income Attachment PBR Estimated (dependent on results) Service Transformation Grant 313,000 Total Income Expenditure New Charter Housing Trust 354,373 354,373 354,373 354,373 354,373 250,400 283,499 283,499 283,499 283,499 49,725 147,000 147,000 147,000 147,000 147,000 362,725 751,773 784,872 784,872 784,872 784,872 286,200 286,200 286,200 286,200 286,200 2,084,867 283,499 1,667,893 784,725 283,499 4,537,485 1,431,000 National Probation Service Greater Manchester Police Attachment TMBC Direct Payments TMBC 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 315,000 567,000 107,535 107,535 107,535 107,535 107,535 537,675 313,000 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 TMBC staff 1,620 91,180 93,020 94,970 96,980 97,990 475,760 Total Expenditure Residual balance unallocated 1,620 880,915 569,755 571,705 573,715 826,725 3,111,435 361,105 -129,142 215,117 213,167 211,157 -41,853 283,499 1,113,050 Service Transformation Element 5.4 The other important source of funding within the expanded programme is a Service Transformation Grant (STG) and this is given to areas in recognition of the programme’s over-arching goal – to help facilitate the delivery of services to these families across all relevant local providers in the most effective way, maximising value for money and evidencing that this is the case. This is of particular importance given the continuing imperative to reduce overall public spending over the coming years. 5.5 It is expected by the central government that this element is used as an enabler in securing the engagement of partners at strategic and operational levels, brokering information and data sharing, undertaking workforce reform, having sufficient analytical capacity and expertise to understand what is being achieved with these families, by which service(s), for what fiscal benefit and to whom that benefit accrues. 5.6 The Service Transformation Grant (STG) will be paid directly to Greater Manchester as a sub region (£2.1m in 2015/16) and will be apportioned to local authorities according to their cohort and population size. Around 15% the local allocation is likely to be top-sliced to Greater Manchester as a whole to ensure we are able to fulfil the evaluation requirements as a sub region. On this basis, we estimate that Tameside’s STG will be around £137,445 per annum (7.7% share of GM families less 15% top slice). 6. JOINT INVESTMENT AND ‘SCALING-UP’ PROPOSAL 6.1 Building upon the successes of phase 1 and the supporting foundation provided by the Joint Investment Agreement. We propose that we not only maintain the highly effective elements of the agreement from phase 1 but build upon this to include other partners and ensure that we amend some operational details to fit. 6.2 The successful model of the Joint Investment Agreement would see the Council agree to invest the troubled families unit’s funds on the basis that other agencies or organisations also agree to contribute to that investment. The agreement will be entered into on the basis that any future benefits (from both reduced demand and results payments) are likely to accrue to either both agencies or the public purse as a whole once the results are achieved. Savings can be used either to partially reimburse an agency for its initial investment or reinvested to scale up the successful intervention. 6.3 There are a number of elements to the Joint Investment Agreement to support Phase 2 requirements in the context of wider public service reform and integration. Part A - Joint Investment with New Charter Housing Trust 6.4 This sees a joint investment with New Charter Housing Trust building upon the successful joint delivery in phase 1. Phase 2 would be an agreement to work with at least 250 families per year (1045 over 5 years). This is on the basis of 15 x Key Workers including a specialist Early Key Worker and plus provision of a Housing Officer to work with the Troubled Families cohort, provide additional tenancy expertise for the Public Service Hub and case manage a minimum of 5 additional cases at any one time (financial breakdown in Table 3). Part B - Joint Investment with Probation 6.5 This sees a joint investment with the National Probation Service, again building upon the successful joint delivery in phase 1 but doubling the resource to ensure we can maximise the return on investment. Phase 2 would be an agreement to work with at least 60 families per year (300 over 5 years) this is on the basis of 2 x Key Workers who will be working primarily with higher level cases with probation involvement. Both of which will interface and work closely with the Public Service Hub (financial breakdown in Table 3). Part C - Joint Investment with Greater Manchester Police - Police Community Support Officer 6.6 This sees a scaling up of the joint investment by incorporating Greater Manchester Police directly into the model. This will allow us to scale up the model, provide additional expertise and ensure that the model is scaled up to support the wider Public Service Reform agenda. Phase 2 would be an agreement to work with at least 94 families per year (470 over 5 years) using the ‘Key Worker’ approach. This is on the basis of 4 x Police Community Support Officers/Key Workers. In addition, this will allow us to test closer working between the ‘People’ based element of reform incorporating the Public Service Hub and the ‘Place’ based element of reform incorporating locality neighbourhood services (financial breakdown in Table 3). Part D - Supporting/additional elements 6.7 In addition to the main Joint Investment agreement with partners there are a number of other supporting elements which contribute simultaneously to Troubled Families Phase 2, the Public Service Hub and the Public Service Reform Agenda. Families Welfare Officer – To date we have seconded a specialist Welfare Rights Officer to work both within the Public Service Hub and to be used as a resource for Early Intervention Services including direct work with those families matching the ‘Troubled Families’ criteria in Phase 1. This role has also been integral to supporting families affected by the Benefit Cap and supporting and preparing individuals for the transfer to Universal Credit. This resource been used as an expertise for key workers to pull on but also has a dual role as a Key Worker enabling a small number of appropriate cases to be carried. This not only increases the capacity of the model but also allows us to transcend traditional service boundaries (financial breakdown in Table 3). Direct Payments (DP)/ Personal Preventative Budgets (PPB) - An essential element of the model is to ensure that we are able to respond effectively to need presenting rather than traditional and rigid remits. We know from learning from our work to date that cases can require ‘bespoke’ support in order to effect sustainable change. These can be simple and low cost solutions which prevent high cost interventions further downstream. In addition, the Direct Payment approach has been successfully piloted with the ISCAN team and has provided an innovative, person centred response to recent Serious Case Reviews where traditional responses did not meet the needs of individuals and families where they did not hit statutory thresholds. Direct Payments are an alternative to traditional care and support services. Services provide cash payments for individuals to purchase services that meet their assessed needs. This gives the person receiving services more choice and control over how their needs are met. Direct Payments users/customers can choose to employ their own care worker(s) known as Personal Assistants or contract an agency that they have selected or a combination of the two. Some Direct Payments customers choose to have Direct Payments to meet some of their needs while other services meet the rest. The Direct Payments Service will provide support and guidance on how to manage Direct payments money, how to recruit a Personal Assistant, how to be a fair employer, and many more things beside. A contract is in place to ensure that financial regulations are monitored effectively. The Direct Payments Service will provide a free payroll service for any Direct Payments customer who employs a Personal Assistant. The Direct Payments Finance Team who will provide support and training to manage any of the Finance paperwork required by Tameside MBC and audit requirements will also be met through this service. Personal Preventative Budgets work on a similar principle but allow very small amounts of money to be managed by a family’s Key Worker in order to address simple, subthreshold and one off problems to support interventions and prevent high cost needs developing. Both DPs and PPBs are only to be used on a discretionary basis where all other avenues have been explored. The provision of a DP or PPB can only be approved by the Multi-agency team in the Public Service Hub (breakdown of costs detailed in Table 3). Analysts – In order to meet the analytical, PBR and evaluation requirements for both GM and central government 2 Analysts Posts are to be funded by the Service Transformation Element of the Grant. Employment Advisors – Due to the successful employment outcomes achieved in Phase 1 through the secondment of Troubled Families Employment Advisors from DWP to Local Authorities. Extra resource has been put into the Programme at a national level to not only continue but increase this resource. As a result, Tameside will have 2 x Seconded Employment Officers from DWP. This is resourced by central government and as such has no cost to the LA. Interface with USDL (Universal Support Delivered Locally) Pilot and Working Well – Though Troubled Families Phase 2 will need to meet certain national requirements, again it is important that our approach locally does not run in isolation but is central to driving forward and supporting other areas of Public Service Reform. First of all our model, in terms of Troubled Families, Early Intervention Services and the Public Service Hub is working closely with DWP to Pilot an Integrated Intervention Approach to supporting families with complex needs prepare for the roll-out of Universal Credit. This essentially sees DWP and the LA sharing information, coordinating their interventions and key workers working more closely with Work Coaches from Job Centre Plus. There is no additional cost to the LA for this. As the Troubled Families Phase 2 allocations are part of the wider devolution agreement at a GM level to work with 50,000 complex individuals or families it is important that our approach sits firmly within the wider approach to tackling issues of complex dependency to reduce demand on all public services. An important part of this is to ensure that the Working Well programme, commissioned at a GM level, to work with people experiencing mental and physical health problems to enter employment, is embedded into the model. The Working Well programme is commissioned specifically to mirror the successful approach taken through Troubled Families using Key Workers. There is no additional cost to the LA for this. Table 3: Part A TMBC Investment NCHT Investment Potential Payment Results Part B Year 1 £ Year 2 £ Year 3 £ Year 4 £ Year 5 £ Total £ 159,000 159,000 159,000 159,000 159,000 166,912 166,912 166,912 166,912 166,912 1,169,910 127,200 127,200 127,200 127,200 127,200 Year 1 £ Year 2 £ Year 3 £ Year 4 £ Year 5 £ 795,000 636,000 Total £ TMBC Investment 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 175,000 Probation (NPS) Investment 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 175,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 140,000 Potential Payment Results Part C TMBC Investment GMP Investment Potential Payment Results Part D Direct Payments Budget Families Welfare Officer Early Starter ELEMENT Year 1 £ Year 2 £ Year 3 £ Year 4 £ Year 5 £ Total £ 59,535 59,535 59,535 59,535 59,535 297,675 59,535 59,535 59,535 59,535 59,535 297,675 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 240,000 Year 1 £ Year 2 £ Year 3 £ Year 4 £ Year 5 £ Total £ 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 35,669 35,669 35,669 35,669 35,669 178,346 313,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 313,000 Total Investment TMBC 273,535 273,535 273,535 273,535 273,535 1,859,021 Total Investment Partner Agencies 261,447 261,447 261,447 261,447 261,447 1,642,585 Total Possible Results Payments (Partner Agencies) 203,200 203,200 203,200 203,200 203,200 1,016,000 Total Possible Results Payments 283,499 283,499 283,499 283,499 283,499 1,417,493 Total Minimum Allocation Numbers NCH Probation GMP Remainder (EH) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 159 35 59 97 159 35 59 97 159 35 59 97 159 35 59 97 159 35 59 97 795 175 295 485 Total estimated Numbers to be worked with 350 350 350 350 350 1750 Partner Agency Minimum Family Numbers 253 253 253 253 253 1265 Additional Allocation Numbers through JI NCH Probation GMP Early Help Full Annual Caseload (Less 97) Total additional per annum JI total Capacity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total Over 5 year Period Year 5 50 25 35 50 25 35 50 25 35 50 25 35 50 25 35 250 125 175 903 903 903 903 903 4515 1013 1013 1013 1013 1013 5065 1363 1363 1363 1363 1363 6815 6.8 The Council will nominate families to each agency through the Multi-Agency Public Service Hub. The starting point, in terms of needs which need to be addressed, will be identified at this stage. The results expected will be specified according to the clearly defined criteria of the troubled families payment by results framework. Families will need to agree to participate in the scheme and agree that information can be shared between agencies in order to deliver the programme and work effectively with the family. 6.9 Agencies will not be prescribed a detailed specification for their intervention model but will be expected to: Case manage a family across the full range of needs within that family; Identify a key worker to take the lead and coordinate the intervention across all public services; Utilise the Common Assessment process for cases as a whole rather than individuals; Comply with requirements of audit, Family Monitoring Data and the Family Outcomes Plan; Integrate with the Public Service Hub and help contribute the Public Service Reform and integration agenda; Respond to needs presented by cases/families rather than respond based on organisational remits; Comply with the USDL pilot and work closely with Working Well colleagues. 6.10 Investing agencies will be required to submit evidence as specified by the Council and Greater Manchester as part of a monitoring, evaluation and review process. This will provide the appropriate evidence needed to review the efficacy of the working models, obtain any results payments and will inform any future decisions to either scale up an investment, adapt the model or disinvest from a model. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 As detailed at the front of this report. APPENDIX 1 GM Family Outcomes Plan
© Copyright 2024